Mara Altman wrote in the NYT that people of shorter stature are better for the planet. Mara claims that the natural resources needed to support a shorter person are less than for a taller person, even though the author acknowledges that shorter people live longer (which may negate the benefits of short stature). Since both genetics and environment determine a person’s height, it was not clear whether the author was advocating that: we manipulate the human genome to breed shorter people, we pair couples to include at least one short partner, or we restrict protein intake with a vegan lifestyle to reduce human stature.
The only thing that most environmental groups like the NRDC and Sierra Club do is complain, file lawsuits, and block things. They're never part of any solution.
For decades, using rational arguments, scientists failed to convince European politicians of the importance of biotechnology, including gene editing. The reason is that Europe is convinced it is on the side of great virtue.
A whopping 62% of Americans are afraid to share some of their political views because somebody might be offended. As we all know now, if you offend somebody, you can lose your job and have your life destroyed. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent environmentalist who believes that climate alarmism is misguided, is feeling the fury of the mob.
Are you a corporate shill if you point out that environmental activists have a financial incentive to present only one side of a story? According to one scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity -- which has about 50 lawyers on its staff -- the answer is yes. Our irony-meters exploded.
Belief in human overpopulation is not just factually incorrect. It also leads otherwise decent people to endorse policies that are pure evil. How the British responded to the Irish Potato Famine serves as a case-in-point.
Environmentalists often oppose the very solutions that they once proposed.
Q: When are environmentalists (such as those with the Union of Concerned Scientists) opposed to efforts to conserve water and energy? A: When hotel housekeeping unions get mad. As we've long said about them, when it comes to saving the planet, ideology trumps science and common sense.
The Lancet has decided that being culturally "woke" is more important than presenting evidence-based reports and opinions.
A serious infectious disease nearly wiped out the beloved chestnut tree. Using genetic modification, scientists have found a way to bring it back. Of course, this is controversial because many environmentalists, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, are only in favor of restoring the environment as long as scientists aren't involved.
Changing the world is hard work. Marching and protesting is easy, but learning about science and taking meaningful action -- like planting a trillion trees -- requires substantial intellectual and physical effort. No wonder so few are willing to do it.
A company called Recompose in Washington State is betting that you're biggest end-of-life concern is: "How can I minimize my corpse's environmental impact?" It was a good bet. Washington has become the first state to legalize human composting, allowing you to rot in peace.